More offensive right-wing drivel about the Paris riots

Paris“Lax immigration policies, prostration to the god of multiculturalism, and the refusal to fight fire with fire are three reasons why Muslim ‘youths’ in Paris are rioting in the streets. As I see it, the religion of Islam is inherently incompatible with the concept of individual liberty, a crucial component of western countries. It’s no accident that a culture like the West and a nation like the United States were envisioned and created by people who were either Christians and/or biblically literate and/or respected the Christian tradition. In countries under Islamic law, there’s no such idea as ‘individual liberty’. You’re either a Muslim or in danger of having your throat sliced open.”

La Shawn Barber’s Corner, 3 November 2005

This analysis is wholeheartedy endorsed by Robert Spencer, who heads his post “French rioters continue to prove multiculturalist relativism a dismal failure”. It appears to have escaped Barber’s and Spencer’s attention that official state policy in France is resolutely anti-multiculturalist, requiring as it does the subordination of minority cultures to the dominant French “national” culture. But never let facts get in the way of a right-wing cliché, eh?

Jihad Watch, 3 November 2005

Right-wing deputy Philippe de Villiers, leader of the Mouvement pour la France, who has said he wants to “stop the Islamization of France”, told RTL radio that the problem stemmed from the “failure of a policy of massive and uncontrolled immigration”.

Associated Press, 3 November 2005

‘Violent Muslim youth riot for seventh day in Paris’

The link is to Fox News but the headline is all Front Page Magazine’s own.

Front Page Magazine, 3 November 2005

Robert Spencer also supplies his own headline – “French Muslims riot for seventh night running” – to a Reuters report entitled “French youths riot for seventh night running”. He explains: “The difference between the Reuters headline and mine epitomizes the difficulty the French have in facing the real dimensions of this problem. For it is ultimately not a problem of disaffected youth who just need jobs and money, but of youth who consider the French government a foreign power, and one that ultimately must be replaced by a very different kind of government.” It’s suprising Robert doesn’t propose a headline reading: “Muslim rioters demand restoration of the Caliphate.”

Jihad Watch, 3 November 2005

And over at the BNP website we are told that “the scale of the violence by Muslim gangs is unprecedented and highlights the hatred and contempt for western society by the rioters”. This “demonstrates the folly of allowing a flood of inassimilable migrants into the heart of western cities”. In other words, an almost identical analysis to Robert Spencer’s.

BNP news article, 2 November 2005

For an alternative view see BBC News, 2 November 2005

‘Condi says Islam is a religion of peace and love’

“While I never imagined Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be a conservative, I used to think she was vaguely connected to reality. Her October 25th speech at an Iftaar dinner (marking the end of Ramadan) disabused me of that notion. It was an exercise in crescent-kissing to put even her boss to shame. Upping the ante on Western Muslim mania, madam secretary promoted Islam from religion of peace to ‘religion of love and peace’. (You always hurt the ones you love?) Islam’s love letters usually come with TNT attached….

“One who shares Condi’s pro-Prophet euphoria is the House of Windsor’s Dumbo. Prince Charles is heading here to lecture us on the need for greater acceptance of the swellest religion ever. Re: Islam, ‘I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational’, the Prince of Wales maintains. Did Neville Chamberlain take too confrontational an approach to the Third Reich?”

Don Feder at ChronWatch, 1 November 2005

Chesler calls for ‘culture war’ against Islam

Phyllis Chesler“… if you try to discuss the Islamic religious and gender apartheid and its dangerous proliferation into Europe and North America (i.e. there have been honor killings in Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Jersey City, Toronto, as well as all over Europe and in the Muslim world), this is what will happen to you: If you tell these truths in the Arab and Muslim world, you’ll be beheaded, probably tortured, certainly jailed, exiled if you are lucky…. If you are a North American intellectual, you may not be imprisoned or beheaded but you will be heckled, mocked, and shunned. You might need security in order to speak.”

Phyllis Chesler bemoans the appalling oppression suffered by Islamophobes.

Front Page Magazine, 31 October 2005

‘Selective Muslim silence’

“Where is the sane moderate peace loving Muslim world? Why is its voice so rarely raised in condemnation of Islamist atrocities? It is a question which has been raised in ever increasing urgency since 9/11 and not only by Westerners…. As human rights activist Abu Khwala explains, ‘fighting infidels until they either convert to Islam or submit to Muslims as “Dhimmis” is still considered by Islamists to be a religious duty’. Hence, any actions undertaken by Muslims towards that end must be vehemently defended with a total disregard of the means used and that is precisely what supposedly non Islamist Muslim leaders do.”

Judith Apter Klinghoffer, History News Network, 31 October 2005

Prince Charles – pawn of the Islamists

Prince Charles and Yusuf Islam“The fact is that Islam is not a religion among religions. Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism do not advocate killing off all those who do not agree with their tenets. Islam advocates that all non-Muslims, being ‘infidels’, must be slain. Cowardly Muslims who do not enter into the slaughter are to be slain by zealot Muslims. Therefore, Islam is not a religion. It is a killing cult. Civilized nations close down killing cults…. It is abhorrent that Charles, with the power attending his position, has been so duped by Islamic leaders he has courted. Yet it is so. And the world is in extreme danger because of it.”

J. Grant Swank at FaithFreedom.org, 31 October 2005

See also Dhimmi Watch, 29 October 2005 (“Richard the Lionheart is rolling in his grave”)

Thank Christ for Charles Martel

What if Charles Martel had failed to defeat the Muslim hordes at the battle of Tours in 732? Paul Akers considers the appalling consequences.

“Without the Christian quickening of conscience that helped abolish slavery in England, the United States, and elsewhere, the Quran-sanctioned institution might be the global norm. An Emir Ibrahim al-Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation…. Women the world over also would be permanent second-class citizens. Many if not most – observe Saudi Arabia – would be forbidden to drive a car, own property, or vote. Battered females might well lack legal or other recourse….

“Regular church attendance is very low in most European countries…. Meanwhile, the continent’s growing Muslim communities are united in faith if not fervor. Soon one in 10 Frenchmen may be Muslim, writes Jenkins, while Frankfurt alone contains 27 mosques. Pray for Europe. But save a few prayers, too, for a band of bearded, coarse, but faithful men who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in a cold dawn and faced proven death galloping full-speed toward them – only to unhorse that grim rider and break his bones to bits.”

Free Lance-Star, 30 October 2005

Through the looking glass: nine danger signs of militant Islam

Sheila Musaji, editor of The American Muslim, responds to the list of “danger signs” of Islamic extremism drawn up by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for an organisation calling itself the United American Committee:

“You can find numerous examples of militants, fundamentalists, extremists, criminals and even mass murderers among every religious group. Although counting numbers is pointless, I am certain that Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden. I haven’t seen any demands that Christians sign some sort of a statement to prove that they don’t have ‘militant intentions’….

“The voices that have us looking to what it is in Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism to find the answers for why criminals carry out violent acts in the name of those religions are only creating polarization, decreasing any chance for dialogue, and leading us down a path that can only lead to a clash of civilizations that might end all civilization.”

alt.muslim, 27 October 2005

For earlier coverage see here. (Since then, the danger signs have increased from seven to nine!)

Why the West needs dialogue with Qaradawi

Outrage Protest (2)“The simple fact is that policymakers in the West – and progressive liberals more generally – are not always going to agree with the opinions of Qaradawi et al. Even very open-minded followers of orthodox scripturalism in Islam will often tend toward social conservatism, meaning that there will continue to be tensions regarding homosexuality and the role of women. It will also be difficult to find complete agreement with the West on more immediate political and security issues. While Qaradawi has strongly and consistently condemned bin Laden and Al-Qaida terrorism, his pronouncements on the insurgency in Iraq and the use of violence by Palestinians have certainly been at odds with Washington.

“That said, however, perhaps the worst thing the West could do is to cast figures such as Qaradawi as part of the problem simply because his views don’t precisely correspond with US goals…. a vote for Qaradawi is a vote against Zarqawi. While increased recruitment into the Qaradawi camp will not by any means produce a generation of Muslims favorably predisposed to US foreign policy, it will represent a consolidated, critical mass of influential and respected Muslims with whom meaningful dialogue with the hope of tangible progress can take place.”

Peter Mandaville at Yale Global Online, 27 October 2005

Marc Lynch comments: “Mandaville’s essay closely tracks arguments I’ve made here and elsewhere about Qaradawi’s significance. Well worth reading.”

Abu Aardvark blog, 28 October 2005